Debbie Long

Delirium in Critically Ill Children: An International Point Prevalence Study*

Objectives: To determine prevalence of delirium in critically ill children and explore associated risk factors. Design: Multi-institutional point prevalence study. Setting: Twenty-five pediatric critical care units in the United States, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, and Saudi Arabia. Patients: All children admitted to the pediatric critical care units on designated study days (n = 994). Intervention: Children were screened for delirium using the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium by the bedside nurse. Demographic and treatment-related variables were collected. Measurements and Main Results: Primary study outcome measure was prevalence of delirium. In 159 children, a final determination of mental status could not be ascertained. Of the 835 remaining subjects, 25% screened positive for delirium, 13% were classified as comatose, and 62% were delirium-free and coma-free. Delirium prevalence rates varied significantly with reason for ICU admission, with highest delirium rates found in children admitted with an infectious or inflammatory disorder. For children who were in the PICU for 6 or more days, delirium prevalence rate was 38%. In a multivariate model, risk factors independently associated with development of delirium included age less than 2 years, mechanical ventilation, benzodiazepines, narcotics, use of physical restraints, and exposure to vasopressors and antiepileptics. Conclusions: Delirium is a prevalent complication of critical illness in children, with identifiable risk factors. Further multi-institutional, longitudinal studies are required to investigate effect of delirium on long-term outcomes and possible preventive and treatment measures. Universal delirium screening is practical and can be implemented in pediatric critical care units.

Dressing and securement for central venous access devices (CVADs): a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES To compare the available dressing and securement devices for central venous access devices (CVADs). DESIGN Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews and of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials. REVIEW METHODS Studies evaluated the effects of dressing and securement devices for CVADs. All types of CVADs were included. Outcome measures were CVAD-related bloodstream infection, CVAD tip colonisation, entry and exit site infection, skin colonisation, skin irritation, failed CVAD securement, dressing condition and mortality. We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS We included 22 studies involving 7436 participants comparing nine different types of securement device or dressing. All included studies were at unclear or high risk of performance bias due to the different appearances of the dressings and securement devices. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the rate of CVAD-related bloodstream infection between securement with gauze and tape and standard polyurethane (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.63, low quality evidence), or between chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings and standard polyurethane (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05, moderate quality evidence). There is high quality evidence that medication-impregnated dressings reduce the incidence of CVAD-related bloodstream infection relative to all other dressing types (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93). There is moderate quality evidence that chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings reduce the frequency of CVAD-related bloodstream infection per 1000 patient days compared with standard polyurethane dressings (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78). There is moderate quality evidence that catheter tip colonisation is reduced with chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings compared with standard polyurethane dressings (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73), but the relative effects of gauze and tape and standard polyurethane are unclear (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.77, very low quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS Medication-impregnated dressing products reduce the incidence of CVAD-related bloodstream infection relative to all other dressing types. There is some evidence that chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings, relative to standard polyurethane dressings, reduce CVAD-related bloodstream infection for the outcomes of frequency of infection per 1000 patient days, risk of catheter tip colonisation and possibly risk of CVAD-related bloodstream infection. Most studies were conducted in intensive care unit settings. More, high quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of dressing and securement products for CVADs.

Intravascular device administration sets: replacement after standard versus prolonged use in hospitalised patients—a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (The RSVP Trial)

Introduction Vascular access devices (VADs), such as peripheral or central venous catheters, are vital across all medical and surgical specialties. To allow therapy or haemodynamic monitoring, VADs frequently require administration sets (AS) composed of infusion tubing, fluid containers, pressure-monitoring transducers and/or burettes. While VADs are replaced only when necessary, AS are routinely replaced every 3–4 days in the belief that this reduces infectious complications. Strong evidence supports AS use up to 4 days, but there is less evidence for AS use beyond 4 days. AS replacement twice weekly increases hospital costs and workload. Methods and analysis This is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of equivalence design comparing AS replacement at 4 (control) versus 7 (experimental) days. Randomisation is stratified by site and device, centrally allocated and concealed until enrolment. 6554 adult/paediatric patients with a central venous catheter, peripherally inserted central catheter or peripheral arterial catheter will be enrolled over 4 years. The primary outcome is VAD-related bloodstream infection (BSI) and secondary outcomes are VAD colonisation, AS colonisation, all-cause BSI, all-cause mortality, number of AS per patient, VAD time in situ and costs. Relative incidence rates of VAD-BSI per 100 devices and hazard rates per 1000 device days (95% CIs) will summarise the impact of 7-day relative to 4-day AS use and test equivalence. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log rank Mantel-Cox test) will compare VAD-BSI over time. Appropriate parametric or non-parametric techniques will be used to compare secondary end points. p Values of <0.05 will be considered significant. Ethics and dissemination Relevant ethical approvals have been received. CONSORT Statement recommendations will be used to guide preparation of any publication. Results will be presented at relevant conferences and sent to the major organisations with clinical practice guidelines for VAD care. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN 12610000505000).

Central venous Access device SeCurement And Dressing Effectiveness (CASCADE) in paediatrics: protocol for pilot randomised controlled trials

Introduction Paediatric central venous access devices (CVADs) are associated with a 25% incidence of failure. Securement and dressing are strategies used to reduce failure and complication; however, innovative technologies have not been evaluated for their effectiveness across device types. The primary aim of this research is to evaluate the feasibility of launching a full-scale randomised controlled efficacy trial across three CVAD types regarding CVAD securement and dressing, using predefined feasibility criteria. Methods and analysis Three feasibility randomised, controlled trials are to be undertaken at the Royal Childrens Hospital and the Lady Cilento Childrens Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. CVAD securement and dressing interventions under examination compare current practice with sutureless securement devices, integrated securement dressings and tissue adhesive. In total, 328 paediatric patients requiring a peripherally inserted central catheter (n=100); non-tunnelled CVAD (n=180) and tunnelled CVAD (n=48) to be inserted will be recruited and randomly allocated to CVAD securement and dressing products. Primary outcomes will be study feasibility measured by eligibility, recruitment, retention, attrition, missing data, parent/staff satisfaction and effect size. CVAD failure and complication (catheter-associated bloodstream infection, local infection, venous thrombosis, occlusion, dislodgement and breakage) will be compared between groups. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval to conduct the research has been obtained. All dissemination will be undertaken using the CONSORT Statement recommendations. Additionally, the results will be sent to the relevant organisations which lead CVAD focused clinical practice guidelines development. Trial registration numbers ACTRN12614001327673; ACTRN12615000977572; ACTRN12614000280606.